By Linda S. Heard, Special to Gulf News
 

There is nobody who believes in the concept of free speech and freedom of the press more than I do, but when it comes to the cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) published in an unimportant, low-circulation Danish newspaper, I believe a red line has been crossed.

At the same time, this gross display of vulgarity says more about the paper's editor-in-chief than the Danes, generally considered some of the most tolerant and peaceful people on earth.

It is unfortunate that Danish-owned business are suffering for the actions of this fool, who despite having come out with a half-hearted apology, is doing the rounds of talk-shows defending his decision to publish.

With the concept of free speech, there comes responsibility, a commodity which Carsten Juste of Jyllandss-Posten, who expressed surprise at the anger displayed by the Muslim world, seriously lacks.

Denmark may not exactly be the centre of the universe but it's hardly the back of beyond either. Five years ago, ignorance of Muslim sensitivities might have stood as a reasonable defence, but not today.

Surely, Juste was aware of the furore caused when George W. Bush framed his war on terror in terms of a "crusade" and later when Newsweek wrote of US guards flushing a copy the Quran down the toilet.

Had news of Theo Van Gogh's film Submission, which showed verses from the holy book written on naked flesh and the terrible consequences that resulted, escaped Jyllandss-Posten's editorial staff?

And was their boss sunning himself on some remote desert island when France's Muslim communities were angered over a ban on religious symbols in schools?

What were they thinking when they published cartoons that they knew many Muslims would consider blasphemous? Defending free speech? I don't think so.

Denmark has enjoyed press freedoms for a very long time, so why in heaven's name would those freedoms need to be defended?

And if the paper was so keen to defend a principle that wasn't under attack, then why did its editor choose to attack the core values of Islam, especially at a time when Muslims rightly believe their countries, their traditions and their cultures are under siege.

Despicable

Sadly, for Denmark, Jyllands-Posten's despicable handiwork was for many Muslims, including moderates and liberals, the last straw.

This assault on the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has opened the floodgates on years of pent up emotion over the vilification and mistreatment of Palestinians, the Sebrenica massacre, the ethnic cleansing of Kosovans, the invasions and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the post 9/11 rounding up and incarceration of so many innocent Muslims.

Since the Bush cabal moved into the White House, Muslims have been humiliated as never before. For many the images of Abu Ghraib are burned into their psyches.

They are outraged at reports of Muslims being kidnapped on the streets of Europe and flown to secret detention centres.

Women of cover and bearded men, who live in European capitals, are sick of the furtive looks of suspicion that greet them when they enter a train carriage or queue to board a plane.

As far as I'm concerned, the bigoted editorial policy of Jyllands-Posten doesn't deserve all the attention it's getting. If the cartoons had been confined to the pages of that rag, then it would have been far better for them to have been ignored.

A far worse problem was the reaction of major publications in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands, that were also compelled to defend their press freedoms.

Many of those countries have important Muslim minorities and burgeoning neo-fascist parties out to make life difficult for them, yet the editors of those papers happily poured salt over an already gaping cultural wound.

As many commentators have pointed out, if they really wanted to make a point, then why aren't they agitating for Holland to allow Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf on the shelves of its libraries and book stores?

Why is Holocaust denier David Irving in an Austrian jail awaiting trial? And why was Prince Harry forced to apologise for dressing up in a Nazi costume at a fancy dress party? I'll tell you why. It's the principle of "never again".

Never again should people be maligned, slandered or, in the worse case scenario, victims of genocide due to their religion or race.

Mein Kampf is outlawed in some European countries because their leaders know that words are often more powerful than bullets, especially when directed at xenophobic elements of society.

In fact, when the West proudly trumpets its free speech and press freedoms it is guilty of hypocrisy.

If anything goes, then why were British newspapers that wanted to publish a leaked memo concerning Bush's alleged ambitions of bombing Al Jazeera's head office, slapped with a gag order?

And when a BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan dared to contradict his government's claim that Iraq was set to inflict its WMDs on the world within 45 minutes of Saddam Hussain's order to do so, not only was he sacked, so was the network chief.

Why should the Western media, which declines to publish bodies of Iraqi victims, limbless and lying in pools of their own blood, indulge in self-censorship?

It doesn't want to offend the sensibilities of its audience that's why, yet those same outlets defiantly go out of their way to offend Muslims at the deepest level possible, their religion.

If those cartoons are an example of free speech, then all I can say when exercising mine is 'humbug'!

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs